Absolute Laws of Morality: Proof for God

The unbeliever thinks the presence of evil in a world created by an all-knowing, all-powerful, good God is a logical inconsistency and contradiction. But these attacks are begging the question, “by what moral standard do you make any judgments, let alone moral judgments against God?” In the end, the problem of evil is not a logical issue for the believer, but the unbeliever, because they have no logical or rational basis to make such an argument against God.1

When atheists proclaim the evil of rape, murder, and abusing children, theists can agree. But only from a theistic worldview can someone observe all that takes place in the world and consider it genuinely evil in any meaningful, objective sense. Any statement declaring some action or activity as “evil” assumes some objective standard by which good and evil can be judged.2 You must have an absolute standard of morality to base it on. The only way to have absolute, objective standard of morality or an absolute standard of truth is to have an absolute moral law giver. The unbeliever on their own has no logical basis to stand on. He/she in essence needs to borrow from God’s standard to criticize God.

Atheism “reduces morals to either personal preferences similar to enjoying one flavor of ice cream over another, or to the increasing preferences of a given people group. In either case, a blatant fact remains: morals are entirely” arbitrary and subjective.3

The atheist or evolutionist should say what Hitler did was perfectly moral. It was accepted by individuals and by German society as a whole. If morality is chosen by the consensus of society, there is no reason the unbeliever today can condemn Hitler for what he did. He believed the things he was doing was

What it comes down to is this: if you reject God, you cannot account for objective morality. All you have is subjective, arbitrary opinions that really don’t matter at all.

Philosopher Chad Meister makes this point, “One cannot consistently affirm both that there are no objective moral values, on the one hand, and that rape, torture and the like are objectively morally evil on the other.”4 To do so is illogical and contradictory.

The unbeliever has no basis for even leveling an argument against God, what He does, or what He allows to happen. But if they decide to do so, they need to understand that they cannot account for the ability to make such arguments in their worldview. Their arguments presuppose the existence of God and borrow from the Christian worldview. They need called out on this. Let’s not answer the fool according to his folly. Let’s show him that as an unbelieving atheist, he cannot prove that anything is objectively good or evil. It contradicts his worldview.

If evolution were true, there is no reason to believe in morality. It cannot be accounted for from a worldview in which we are nothing more than animals or matter in motion. If evolutionists were consistent, they would reject all notions of morality. If we are just glorified primates, it would be just as “moral” for a human to kill another human than it would be for an ape to kill another ape. It would be just as acceptable for us to go, kill, and eat other people as other animals do. Why does the evolutionist make a distinction? We are related to apes, and have no extra inherent value than any other primate if evolution were true. It is all about survival of the fittest. Might makes right. Some evolutionists, being inconsistent, like to believe that humans have more rights than other animals, or that we have more value or dignity. This is not the case if evolution is true. We would have no more right to life or any more value than a skunk. This is what being consistent will lead to as an evolutionist.

Some atheists and evolutionists are willing to be consistent in their beliefs by saying that if there were only ten people left in the world, one woman and ten men, it would be moral for all of these men to force themselves on this woman if she was unwilling to have relations with them. If doing what is best for the human race or society, or what most the makes the most people happy is the standard of morality, rape in this situation would be perfectly moral. This is a consistent approach to morality from an unbelieving worldview, and this is the absurdity atheism is lowered to if it is taken to it’s farthest extreme! But of course, the atheist rejects such arguments because they are not willing to be open to the logical outcomes of their worldview.